Is the US in denial over its $14tn debt?

Not at all. Hamilton and the Whigs most certainly preceded Lincoln, but it was Lincoln who gave their philosophy a true foothold in the Federal government.

Unless, as is always the case, that debt grows insurmountably due to obligations its government will ultimately default on.

Relying on ever increasing revenue to service debt is exactly how the housing bubble collapse led to the crisis we have today.

If your problem is future growth in the debt, then you're talking about the deficit. Which is what I said is a problem.

What happens to deficit that isn't balanced?

What is a deficit that isn't balanced, exactly? Do you mean budget?
The deficit is a difference between annual expenditures and incomes.

We agree that that needs to be reduced.

By how much? How much of a deficit, on the average, is sustainable in the long run?

In the long run (extending indefinitely into the future) the average deficit needs to be lower than the average rate of growth in the economy. That way debt as a percentage of GDP is stable.

That leaves lots of room for variation in any given year, including in how fast the deficit needs to be cut.

Actually, I do think it can be fixed.

But you have to look at massive cuts across the board. Revenues will grow eventually when the economy picks up, but you can't look at them to lower the deficit.

The deficit needs to be -$100 billion next budget. Which means almost a trillion dollars in cuts. Its doable, but requires political backbone.

Tax rates need to be restructured, loopholes need to be closed, welfare programs need to be reformed, and food stamps need to be seriously investigated because I think we all know a lot of people are manipulating the system. Defense needs to be cut to the tune of $1 trillion over the next ten years. Even healthcare, including the fuckup known as Obamacare needs to be reformed. I'm not sure what, or how....but you can't pay for something you don't have just for the sake of saying you have a healthcare program. The financial community needs better regulation. Subprime mortgage? Get the fuck out. That shit is done. Derivatives need to be regulated as well. It'll mean kicking out those fuckers on Capital Hill that come from Wall Street because they're obviously influencing the government. The financial regulation that WAS passed needs to be kicked out. Smaller banks didn't fail in the first place, so I have no idea why the government thinks they need to get involved in how they give out loans. Small businesses are suffering because of it. The EPA needs a serious overhaul. If you have a aggressive but reasonable environmental policy it can help drive R&D when it comes to things like oil drilling, shale, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and it'll even result in more efficient coal plants. Alberta is a great example of this. But there is a fine line.

Do those things and the economy will pick up solely because the $2-$3 trillion that businesses are sitting on WILL be invested. That'll drive growth in the economy, increase revenues, and you can slowly start paying down the debt. But it'll require at least $2 trillion in surpluses every 10 years. Which comes out to $200 billion/year. Easily doable if things are managed right. Sure it'll take a lot of time, but once revenues are growing and the economy is growing, the debt won't matter insofar as how long it takes to pay it down, as long as it IS being paid down.

In theory, you are right. In practice, you are failing to take into accout the effects of those massive cuts. In the short term, they will imply huge numbers of people being unemployed, living at the very limit of the sustenance level, a serious decline in the stock market, massive strikes and protests, and so on. All of that will have a major economic effect, which cannot be neglected.

Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm not the "Foist it off on our kids and grandkids so we don't have to worry about it" kind of guy. I'm just pointing out that it can't really be called a "fix" when it implies a devastating economic upheaval that could easily last ten or even twenty years.

A price that you have to pay. Canada went through the same thing and it has taken 10 plus years to fully recover, but at least we're managing our deficit problem now.

Our deficit this year is something like 50% of the total budget. The deficit ALONE is equal to about 10% of GDP. Revenues are not rising, inflation is increasing, the economy is either not growing or growing very sluggishly. Huge new taxes intended to close the gap are liable to bring the economy down further. Entitlement spending is set to explode, and the fiscal impact of Obamacare is yet to be understood. Unemployment is not improving. Housing has still not hit bottom.

We've been in this very, very deep recession for YEARS now and there is no sign of improvement on the horizon.

There is a way out, but our overlords in Washington won't accept it. Their jobs hinge on the promises they've made to people using taxpayer money but their account is overdrawn.

Patently Unconstitutional. As am American, I have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. If I think Harry Bloor will make a good President or Senator, I have every right to send him a check to support his campaign.

So. Stream of consciousness here. Bear with me. Coming back to the bear trap analogy. That is it. Harsh measures are required. Like cutting off a perfectly good limb because it has a gangrenous infection. Like what is happening in Detroit--only in a controlled manner. Their central railway station? A shambles. Derelict. Closed for years and falling down. Much of the town is the same way. Yes, they're saving on all the salaries but they're losing on the property. Of course at this point the property is worse than worthless and what might've been a treasure and an asset years ago is a huge millstone now.

How to do this? Fuck, you got me. But I'm just a guy sitting at a computer. I'm not supposed to have an answer. Be very hard to do without at least the broad, sweeping powers FDR had because of the Depression and later WWII. But If I could do things: BANG! Privatize Social Security. Turn it from a Ponzi scheme into a workable investment portfolio. As an added benefit, you're sinking capital into proven businesses and stimulating the economy. BANG! Torpedo Obamacare. Grandfather in anyone who was on Medicare. Kill Medicaide. Kill all your tariffs and subsidies. Radically throttle back foreign aid. Evict the UN and stop paying for it. Start wiping out Departments. BATFE, Education, the EPA, and possibly Health & Human Services leap to mind. As much as it pains me to say it, start drawing the military down to Clinton levels. We've always been able to ramp up when we needed to--from the Civil War to 9/11. If someone attacks us we can do it again. Cut everything from Porkulus. Sell off GM. Open all public land up to resource extraction. Sell off any public land that doesn't have any resources.

It'd be brutal. You'd probably have riots. But it the riots are coming anyway...

So, do you do a new "Road Warrior" movie and retcon the situation or just completely reboot the franchise?

Volpone, part of the problem is that we are in a system that despises savings. Savings are considered a "bad investment" instead of a safe harbor.

While I would like the unemployment rate to be lower, I'm glad that companies being chastised and lashed out at for "sitting on money" have the safe harbor of that money to allow them to weather the storm and eventually leave the harbor to engage in new commerce.

The Federal Government, on the other hand, has built a super strong, very expensive, hurricane proof fort - on a sand bar. Hitch that bitch to 20,000 tractors and move it to a better foundation. Eliminate the deficit.

There is no way anyone can spin this to turn the US's deficit into a positive. Just like anyone who maxes out their credit card, running in the negative catches up to you sooner or later.

Shut up.

Shut up.

Shutupshutupshutupshutup......

What I want to know and I've never gotten a answer is how raising taxes on the rich will help solve the problem?

We know from experience that if you raise rates too high people at all income levels will do things to avoid being hit at the new rate. We saw this with the threat of taxes being raised on someone making $250k a year. People were trying to figure out how to get under that number. We've seen rich people in the past simply park their money and wait it out. You can only tax income. You can't tax what they already have (and paid taxes on). Companies and rich people take money out of the economy and put it in foreign lands to avoid high taxes.

The number of rich people in America is not even close enough to make a true difference. Our debt is $14,000,000,000,000. The richest man in America? Bill Gates at $54 Billion.

It would take about 18.5 Bill Gates just to make one trillion dollars. (It would take about 259 Bill Gates to make $14 trillion).

Do we have that many Bill Gates? Obviously no. According to Wikipedia the combined wealth of the richest 400 Americans is 1.37 Trillion Dollars. The estimated total deficit for the year 2011 is projected to be about $1.645 trillion dollars. (Wikipedia)

So even if you took all 100% of the rich peoples assets and were able to magically convert it into money without affecting the economy you still would not be close to solving the problem.

So you take all their money and then what? Have you solved anything? The answer is no.

One there are not enough rich people. (not even if you add in all the households making $250k a year and up to Bill Gates)

Two if you took everything they had they would have nothing to give you next year.

Three none of them would stay in the country. They'd leave. Who wants to be in a country as hostile as one who takes everything you've got?

Now since we wouldn't take everything from a person we are stuck with even less tax money coming in from rich people to pay off the government.

So going after rich people does nothing. In the end you would have to raise taxes on the middle class and the poor as well. This is why I laugh at people who scream, "TAX THE RICH" because those people don't understand that even if you raise taxes on the rich the government will raise taxes on everyone because it has no choice in the matter.

Which is what has happened in the past and which is what almost happened when Obama refused to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. That they only extended the Bush tax cuts for a couple years is laughable. Once those tax cuts expire everyone from the wealthy to the poor will be paying more (The poorest will pay 50% more going from a 10% rate to 15%).

It all comes down to government spending. Spending must be brought under control.

And instituting a new tax system: Fair Tax.

Gets rid of all loopholes but because it is so simple it brings money back into the country.

I don't think people realize the true extent of Obamacare. If Obamcare starts up the results to the Federal Budget will be horrendous.

We've already seen how they now have to pay billions if not trillions more for people who can pay their own way for healthcare. There is no telling what other landmines are in that bill.

Pay attention, Dan. A bunch of us are as pissed off at the Republicans as we are at the Democrats.

Exactly. And it is precisely because we know that the Republicans would have done little different from the Democrats. That's why we refused to vote for Obama or McCain. It's not like that hasn't been said already on Wordforge, over and over and over and over...

...and over...

Could you repeat it again. I don't think he heard you.

Done!

I was happy to write in Ron Paul. People are just now starting to realize just how far ahead of the curve he was.

You'd just deny it.

^ Then you aren't paying attention. So there is no need in repeating it, since you just ignore it, despite the large number of us saying it over and over, and form your own conclusions based on your own prejudices.

So go ahead. Just don't expect us to take your criticisms seriously, when they obviously are not based in reality.

I, for one, spent 8 years ripping Dubya a new one over at TNZ and here. How many times have I said that Reagan should be dug up every year on March 30 and let John Hinckley shoot him again? So I don't think I've exactly been speaking from any Republican bias.

I saw the Reps going down the wrong track and fell out with them during Reagan's first term. He was the first Neo Con president, not Dubya.

I've voted independently since I first got to vote in 1975 because I've always felt that neither party particularly had the exactly right ideas. Thus, it was best to vote candidate, not party. I didn't realize it fully until the Wordforge era that I was a libertarian. I knew my political views didn't exactly fit either party and I suffered some political confusion.

I had some friends who were in the Libertarian Party early in its inception, but that party didn't quite have its act together then and I wasn't politically educated enough to fully let go of the old status quo. Too, the Libertarians were a bit more extreme then. Since then, they're finally figuring out what they stand for, but they made a terrible mistake in nominating Bob Barr as their candidate a few years ago. Barr was too established as an old school Republican and Neo Con, and it cost them.

A number of us are speaking libertarian ideals and have been for years, but Dan and the other left wingers don't listen. TNZ loved me when I ripped on Bush, but because I'm anti-Obama as well, the dog pile starts so I don't even bother to go over there any more.

Nothing, but that assumes they have higher taxation than the rest of us. If you compare the tax rates on someone who makes their income from long term capital gains versus salary, even if it is the same amount, the salaried person will end up paying almost 20% more in taxes. Why, for example, a doctor worth less to us as a society than a trust fund kid? They should either be taxed equally at the high rate, the low rate, or somewhere in between.

• Decades of borrowing against the social security trust fund to pay for unneeded deficit spending.
• A ridiculously high military budget.
• Health entitlement programs that favor the insurance, health care, and prescription drug industries.
• Ending protectionist tariffs.
• Borderline negligent oversight of the financial sector, especially in the market of derivative securities.
• Corporate laws which favor directors and executives over shareholders.
• Wars, wars, wars, wars, wars.
• A government that is unnecessarily large.
• Tax cuts that did nothing but enable capital owners to expedite the move of capital to other countries.

There's some stuff I'm probably missing, it's still early.

Azure agrees: good start. add dumb regulation by the EPA as well.

While EPA has a lot of dumb regulations, the bigger problem is the general issue of administrative agencies with regulatory power, and an overall noncohesive energy and environmental policy.